As I discuss in the vid-clip "Knife Ruminations" on our website, I have a certain reluctance to teach offensive knife openly. I'm not sure this makes sense in a world of guns, but it seems to me that training offensive knife calls to the darkness is a special way.

The Die Less Often material is ANTI-knife and is intended to give the best odds possible against the most like kind of attack in the American environment: Crazed forehanded thrusting (and slashing) either untrained or trained, as in the Prison Sewing Machine variations. My thought here is that the bad guys already know these things, and that I help the cause of the good to help good people acquire a more realistic sense of what they might really face.

This is an example of the DBMA teaching principle "Teach Primal Probabilities First".

In that context of course there needs to be a block of material to respond to the Ice Pick Caveman based attacks. I have had a couple of random techniques that I like, but frankly the material was not up to the standard that I think I achieved with the anti PSM material. While part of the challenge was to maintain the "Consistency across categories" concept so as to minimize reaction time, the simple fact was that I did not have a matrix and grid the way I do with the anti-PSM material , , , until today.

Of course the material will need to be pressure tested further, but two seasoned students and I aired things out fairly well today and my doggy nose tells me that today was a moment of satori.

The Adventure continues!Guro Crafty

PS: This past Friday I had a very intriguing day being trained in the very interesting Piper Knife system of South Africa. One of the moves that I learned on Friday appears in the new anti-Ice Pick Caveman material.

When it comes to folders of the size typically carried here in the US, for many years I preferred a hammer grip for the knife and therefore chose knives with handles that favored this grip. Part of the reason that I preferred hammer grip was that I got (and probably still do get) better results with it in what in DBMA we call "Sport Knife Dueling". Because I suspect the SKD mindset informs the thinking of many people in martial arts for Real World application more than they realize (which was certainly the case for me) I'd like to share a bit of my own evolution here.

I begin by making clear that, despite the playfulness of the name, I do not make fun of SKD. SKD was a staple of my training some 25 years ago with Paul Vunak who used it for the development for certain important attributes such as footwork, timing, reflexes, etc. Furthermore, in the Dog Brothers we have always used SKD as a way to open our "DB Gatherings of the Pack" for additional purpose of kicking the day off, getting fighters warmed up for the stickfights, letting fighters assess each other a bit before stickfighting, etc. (The Euros do not do SKD at their DB Gatherings.)

In short SKD dueling can be lots of fun for young males into ritual hierarchical ritual combat AND it can serve quite well in many situations which force one to pull a knife. And these knife skills can be very directly applicable to the real world should one need to use a knife to keep threat at bay-- though do note that brandishing a knife at an unarmed person can present interesting legal questions. I'm not saying these questions can't be answered with the right fact pattern e.g. a middle aged desk jockey being menaced by a guy whose face is covered with MS-13 tattoos intuitively seems to me like a relatively easy sell but often the line between legal and illegal brandishing can be quite blurred.

But I digress , , , Returning to the discussion,

That said it does present interesting challenges for those interested in using this training method for real world application because IMHO what we do in the adrenal state of ritual combat will tend to appear in real world combat as well. (This is precisely the reason I develop our "Kali Tudo" tm-- so we can adrenalize our empty handed fighting with Kali Silat with the result that our unarmed and armed fighting are the same idiom of movement.)

But what if the worst case scenarios of the real world feature behaviors other than those assumed by "proper" SKD?

In the real world two people facing off with real knives drawn is really rare. As the actors here in Los Angeles would say "What is the motive here in this scene?" What would motivate someone to stay and have a knife fight? And how likely is it that the other person would be equally motivated? In prison I suppose leaving might not really be an option, but most of us are not in prison-- and in prison it is usually an ambush, often by superior numbers, anyway.

If we answer the question by assuming two men both in a killing rage e.g. in prison or on the battlefied, then we are likely to see, in the immortal words of someone with whom I once had an interesting conversation, the behavior pattern of "Pump him until he is dead, then bind your wounds" (Hereinafter "Pump and bind" or PAB). The problem though for SKD is if we bring PAB to it then we are not developing the attributes intended by the training nor or we acting rationally like the semi-normal people that we are for KD is not something rational people do in our time and place in our culture.

Thus in SKD we are left with the inherently blurry lines concerning the definition of realistic behavior for it. Most people will leave in the presence of a knife, but if we assume staying e.g. a desperate robber, then we can say most people would leave after getting slashed or stabbed. On the other hand, of the kind of people who in this world are genuinely willing and motivated to engage against a knife, then most of them will not leave after getting wounded, for their mindset is Pump and Bind-- they expect to be cut and stabbed and to survive the process of killing you , , , or they don't care if they die as long as they kill you.

Good luck and my rules of engagement (avoid stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things and what your think of me is none of my business) have combined to my having absolutely no personal experience in this whatsover. Success! That said my readings, conversations with those not so lucky, and various youtube clips have persuaded me that many people do not realize that they have been slashed or stabbed until after the fight is over. This can include even mortal wounds.

Thus we can have someone of evil intent unstopped and undeterred by what SKD might consider "good scores". In SKD I might be busily defanging the snake by slashing at the arm of my opponent but if some cranked out gangbanger in colder weather wearing heavier clothing is coming to get me, well then those slashes that I thought would stop him and keep him outside my bubble might not work.

Thus it is that I have come to the thinking that when using a small knife (e.g. one that is not going to lop off hands) that the power and impact of the strike matter and for me ice pick does a better job than hammer grip.

Hello! New Member Here! I love the forum, so far. I dislike my first post being in the nature of 'no crap, there I was' As someone who teaches both the art and self-defense aspects of martial arts, I found myself recently coming to two realizations. First, my students are increasingly more willing to take what I say at face value. While I have teachers of my own, I am always looking for others who can help me sort through the BS of my own ego. That is what I have come to DBMA looking for. Secondly, at at some point, a student or even someone I have had a casual conversation with is going to gamble their life on something I have said or demonstrated. With those two factors combined, I feel obligated to search for new questions and answers.

During a discussion of knife work while testing out the material in DLO1 & 2, I realized that I could not remember the exact number of knife-play situations I had been involved in. I think it is 4 or 5. I have certainly witnessed several more. The details do not matter suffice it to say that 50 percent of the time, I was cut. All of them that I have been involved in or witness to, save one, could have easily been avoided by not being stupid or insecure.

I will say that I am from 'The South' and have seen the redneck barfight escalate into a knife fight. Alcohol is almost always involved. Posturing. An exhange of blows. One side starts winning. The losing side gets scared and goes for a knife. Most working men in the south have knives with them. Suddenly, there are two knives out with people who are already engaged in a fight. And no one is willing to back down. And with small folding knives, people get cut a lot and don't stop or even die.

One story that a friend of mine was involved in that I will tell, because I think it is relevant to offensive knife tactics.

Man A is riding an ATV at a local recreation area. He tries to take a hill and flips. He's banged up but mostly dazed. Man B begins heckling Man A. Man A says a few things he should not. Man B comes charging over and hits Man A hard enough to drive him to the ground and break his jaw. Man A's jaw had to be rebuilt. Man A is now in a fight with Man B who is capable of crippling or killing him. Man A pulls small pocket knife and commences going to work. Man B is hospitalized. Man B survives only because somewhere in the stabbing process, Man A's knife breaks. Man A is arrested for attempted murder but the jury finds in his favor.

The points: Deadly fights show up suddenly. That scenario's opening could have easily been a rush hour traffic fender-bender of the kind that most people who live in a large city have been in. Two, when someone is crippled in the opening salvo, they have to quickly equalize and neutralize.

Three: Directly to the point of the discussion: Knives, especially small folders, break when applied violently against a hard object. ie, a human skull or hip bone. Or the pavement or a brick wall or a car hood.

anybody walking up with that kind of lopsided face is going to make me very wary. I understand that that kind of lopsidedness to the eyes and face is a sign of stroke, severe concussion or psychosis (drug induced or otherwise).

No correlation between facial asymmetry and psychosis. Keep in mind that some of the most dangerous individuals I've ever dealt with had no physical indicators or "aura of evil" indicating what they were. Often, sociopaths are quite charismatic and glib.

I would agree with G M. The one person I have met face to face that I am 98 percent certain is a true sociopath is charming, friendly, glib and totally without any true empathy or remorse that I have ever seen. I know what a liar the man is but there is nothing in the fellow's body language to give it away. I just have enough experience with this person to assume that if his mouth is uttering words, he is lying about something.

That's it gang up . I am still going to be wary until I figure what is up with the guy. Heck It could be a simple effort to distort the booking picture to make him harder to identify too. Until I figure that out it is going to be an "arms length" stituation.

I think the point is that we are supposed to be discussing potential offensive knife techniques as well as anti-knife. In light of Guru Crafty's original post, I've been pondering the knife techniques I might use if I have to cripple or kill quickly, especially WRT the lack of immediate effect. In some ways it reminds me of the problems that are run into with small, fast moving bullets. The 5.56mm is lethal enough (avoiding that debate) but often not in an immediate fashion. The same thing, especially with a pocket knife. It is lethal but it takes time for someone's body to realize that they are dead.

I was thinking that it might require a combination of techniques. A cut or stab, followed by an immediate shove, driving knee, kick, shoulder strike or sweep. Get in the lethal blows with the knife and immediately drive them away with some other technique to give them time to die. Either that or immediately go into a grappling control position of some sort to give them time for the effects to occur. I know in the US Army training guidelines, a kidney stab is suggested. It takes longer for someone to die but the pain is usually intense enough to be incapacitating. Having had 2 kidney stones, I do not immediately disagree with that statement but I've never known or seen anyone stabbed in the kidneys to get first hand evidence.

I apologize for the lack of coherence of the last post. I was at work and made the mistake of rushing it instead of waiting until I had more time. On to the offensive knife discussion.

Premise One: We find ourselves in a deadly-force situation in which we are armed with a knife. For one reason or another, retreat or avoidance is not an *immediate* option.

Premise Two: We are attempting to establish a simplified model of a single knife's use and effectiveness so that we can begin laying out principles, theories, tactics and options.

Starting with those two baselines, let us first look at the knife. One streamlined way of looking at a typical small knife (in the 2-4" range) is as a force modifier to the empty hand. It adds slightly to the mass and length of the lever. In an icepick grip, it can function much like a closed first. In a hammer grip, it can function much like a finger strike. The knife's blade will take the energy found in the hand and focus it into a very small area. This means that a given amount of energy will penetrate better than the empty hand but transfer less momentum to the target. This reduced transfer is an important factor to remember when thinking about following strikes or when dealing with a stop-hit scenario such as a bull-rush charge. It does one little good to neutralize the threat if the opponent's energy carries us out into the road in front of a speeding car.

Treating the knife as a particularly deadly hand, we can break down immediate options. The starting point is the initial opening exchange. For simple illustrative purposes, we are starting with knife in right hand vs right handed opponent. After that, the variables grow exponentially. In initiating our offensive action, do we wish to use the knife as an opener to clear the path to the vital targets or do we prefer to use the knife as a finisher?

Using the knife as an opener, we are probably attempting to disable one of the opponents limbs in order to both remove it from our attack line to more vital targets and reduce its ability to inflict damage upon us. Example: Cut to the lead hand followed by front thrust kick to groin/bladder.

Using the knife as a finisher leaves us with using one of our other limbs to to set up our attack with the knife. Example: The classic jab and grab followed by much stabbing and cutting.

Option Three: Use the knife as both opener and finisher in a rapid sequence. Example: cutting inside sweep to lead hand that becomes a stab to liver or kidneys. Option Three is essentially a variation of Option 1: Knife as Opener because we are still using the knife primarily to remove a threat and open our attack line.

This is meant as a starting point to the model and deliberately leaves out considerations such as reach, oppenent's weapons and posture. The point is to look at what the small knife can and cannot do. When I started really thinking about this a couple of days ago, I realized that I did not have a real practical model for what truly happens when a dangerous opponent is cut. One of the ideas I had for assembling the model is from bowhunting. Assuming a hunting broadhead acts much like a small knife, there should be considerable of literature on what happens when a large predator is struck in the vitals. For a human analog, possibly start with experiences of those who bowhunt wild pigs.

If it will help start a discussion, I will throw out some scenarios to help explain why we might be fighting offensively with a knife. These scenarios are based on real events with the information changed a bit to protect the guilty and the stupid. Do not get too caught up on the specific details. The scenarios are meant as brainstorm exercises. In all scenarios, you have a clip folding knife or small fixed blade attached to your pocket or belt or wherever you like to keep it.

Scenario 1. You are visiting a friend at his home in an isolated subdivision at night. The lighting is not terrible but not great, either. You knock on his door but there is no answer. Deciding he is not home, you start back to your car. Out of the darkness between your friend's house and the neighboring house, comes a figure. When the light hits, you can tell that it is not your friend. The man approaches, pointing a flashlight in your eyes. Dazzled a bit, you do not see the pistol in his hand until he is within 10 feet and is still approaching. The man begins to berate you, falsely accusing you of having run over one of his dogs. He is furious, sweating and his eyes look a bit wild. The pupils are dilated. He steps towards you and begins brining the pistol up to you.

Scenario 2: You are about to start pumping gas at a station. You've just slid your credit car but have not started pumping yet. A reasonably clean man wearing jeans and a t-shirt approaches you with an unlit cigarette and starts to ask you for a light. As you are about to respond, you catch a reflection off your car window and see someone approaching from the opposite direction with a piece of rebar raised over his head to caveman whack you. Your car is blocking one lateral and the pump is blocking the other lateral.

Scenario 3: You are leaving the mall's movie theatre after watching a late movie with your date/spouse/child. As you walk to your car, you have to pass a concrete island that contains one of the mall's electrical substations. From around behind it comes a large, screaming man spraying ammonia at you from a cheap spray bottle before he makes a grab for your wife and her purse. You are half blind and feel like you are hacking up a lung.

Scenario 4: You are walking along the street near a park where a bunch of pre-teenagers are playing soccer. The ball comes bouncing roughly in your direction. A few of the teenagers come to get the ball. As the pick it up, they notice you. And they begin to circle you, demanding money and cigarettes. One of them pulls a knife and and threatens you.

Think of these scenarios as reasons why you might need to go into an offensive tactical posture with a knife. I would not be too concerned with specific techniques. I would think about how you have to engage and why.

The way that a knife duel is most likely to happen for us (good, law-abiding people) is when attacked by a knife wielding attacker, where we are carrying our own knife (and not carrying our pistol.)

If we are able to survive the initial attack, and access our weapon a couple of things are then likely: we run away successfully, he sees our knife and realizes that he is not going to win easily (he doesn't want a 'fair fight') and leaves, or now committed to the attack (for whatever reasons) he is still trying to hurt us.

For those of us who carry a defensive knife and know the dog-catcher or have other skills the is not unthinkable event -- even though knife duels may be rare, they are going to be more likely for those of us with skills and knives than for the average person.

Of course a second reason for offensive knife skills is to "give good attacks" to our partners who need to practice their own defensive skills -- we do not want to be in the practice of testing our techniques against poorly executed or unrealistic attacks.

One of the strengths of what DBMA does (as well as the Suarez folks and the AMOK! folks of Tom Sotis) is to test all proposed solutions (eventually) against full speed QUALITY attacks by a fully resisting partner who is physically capable (e.g., young, strong, fit, fast).

If we don't give good knife, we cannot be sure that our partners are learning and using good defensive techniques.

1) As "I" define things, all four of StillJames's scenarios are defensive. You are defending yourself from attack. When I say "offensive" here I am talking about , , , initiation.

2) I'm not sure why Herb is bringing here something I said on another forum that I did not have time for at the moment, but since he has I will take a moment to comment that I am not really sure why what I wrote above is being taken as/being presented as meaning that I am advocating giving poor quality, unrealistic knife attacks. Surely with DLO-1, DLO-2, and DLO-3 out there it should be pretty fg clear by now that I believe in training to solve realistic knife attacks?

I actually thought your question was, "Should you teach offensive knife -- from an ethnical, moral, legal standpoint." And I thought you meant 'offensive' in the sense of fighting with the knife whether it is duel, ambush, defense (in the sense of counter-attack) or whatever.

It did seem that we (myself and several others) on both this forum and the other where something similar was posted were all giving answers or comments to different questions so that as leas some of us must have been off-topic from what your really intended.

In no way did I mean to imply that you (Crafty) were not in favor of realistic attacks and attacking skills -- I was merely trying to address the proposed question as I understood your initial post.

I would never intend to initiate with a knife, any intiating attack from me would be from something way beyond "personal" distance. The only case I can envisage initiating a knife attack would be in the context of an ongoing fight with a lull which would allow me to get my knife (my last ditch weapon)out and open. In which case I will be looking for an ambush where the corpse will never know what hit it, if I could not be long gone.

The scenarios presented have me envisaging removing the weapon/ arm/ hand from the fight in the most immediate and violent means possible to end the fight. I do not know the name of the moves I envisage, but they all involve controlling the weapon hand/ arm so the bullet/ knife does not get to my body. That would be the 2 handed catch I know from Fairbairn styles, some disarms I know from Krav Maga, some "stacks" I have picked up in various demos (twist to lock joints then a vicious shove which breaks the joints/ breaks the weapon free and knocks the attacker over) of Aikido. The rebar would be my sticking point- I would probably be accepting some damage to get mobility vs 2 attackers. There is not any time for me to get the folder out, it is a case of being stuck in a fist fight vs weapon. Hopefully when all is said and done i can say " he brought a gun/knife/stick to a fist fight".

The amonia attack is by far the nastiest- I will have to think on that- no sight no breath, I would be hoping my woman knows enough to take care of herself while I am recovering enough to finish it. A dump the purse- kick the wallet under a car- run tactic might be in order?

Yes, the 4 scenarios are all essentially a more aggressive and proactive defensive set-up. One of the moral and ethical points we face in our life in more than just a knife situation is: Where does proactivity end and being an aggressive bully begin? It is a hard line to draw. It's something that countries debate as well as people. At the end of the day, the decision is going to come down to the person out on the sharp end of things and what he or she can determine at the time with less than ten seconds to determine the pattern of the rest of the life. And the rest of us will likely debate it and second guess it later. I know I have with most of the things I have done, both good and bad.

Outside of certain situations such as sentry-elimination, is there truly a reason to engage in an entirely offensive scenario other than for pure power purposes. Even there, we get into crazy circles. We don't eliminate a sentry because we want to. But because we don't want the sentry to kill us or our friends. It gets dangerous because most (not all) authoritarian view themselves as operating in a mindset of proactive defense. Whenever we start playing games like that, we tend to get into chicken and egg spirals.

Which brings me to the next question: Outside of a purely sporting situation, why teach offensive combatives at all? One can very easily apply the same ethical question about offensive knife as offensive fist, foot, stick or handgun. The knife merely brings the danger and ethics into, ahem, sharper focus, ahem. *grin* A twelve year old boy who gets his body weight behind a haymaker can shatter a jaw in a schoolyard fight without training. That's thousands of dollars and many weeks of recovery time plus pain and suffering inflicted upon someone.

Fingers, fists, knees and other empty handed blows can be every bit as lethal as the knife. We should never forget that, ethically, when we argue, fight or teach. One of the reasons for the foundation of arts such as Aikido is so that someone could defend themselves without mangling someone else for the rest of their life.

I have come to feel that, as a teacher, one of the responsibilities is to provide a practical example of living correctly. I do not mean espousing any particular dogma or belief. I mean simply living and showing daily certain basic ideas such as not inflicting needless harm with deeds or words (which can be the same thing) But I get way off topic and into other forum topics. Enough for now.

And I apologize if I ever go too far into classroom lecture mode. I do that almost by default.

It is my opinion that teaching a defensive mentality will get people hurt. People preach the impracticality of bjj in violent encounters all the time, and then those same people accept something like pinning an opponent with aikido as highly functional. It boggles the mind. Defense just won't work against multiple or armed opponents. You have to end the situation. At least that is what the "experts" on the subject seem to agree on.

Why teach offensive knife skills? Are there really any defensive knife skills? It seems to me that the Pekiti methodology of "offense/counter offense" is really the only option when considering blades. You can't exactly roof block a knife slash. It seems to me that using a knife to defend yourself, and using defensive knife techniques are two separate things. One exists, and one doesn't.

Logged

When life gives you lemons make lemonadeWhen life gives you hemlock, do NOT make hemlockade!

There was debate a while back after the growth of the RBSD movement - Reality Based Self Defense that is - regarding the problem of using the word 'Defense'. Obviously Self Defense is a concept we all understand, but many in the field preferred to call what they did 'Self Protection' because ultimately people with experience understood that the best defense is offense, and on some level you NEED to be pro active. Purely defending yourself, and having preset, imaginary boundaries of not being willing to hurt your attacker are misguided at best.I have never been attacked, so I only speak from what I have learned and read from others that know and teach this stuff. So far the consensus is that the only way to stop a committed attacker attacking you, is to attack them. If they are not busy dealing with you, they are not going to stop. As those that never get closer to fighting than sparring or doing SKD know, you can't defend forever, it just doesn't work, even in this 'fair' environment.I have come to believe that it is not realistic to think of 'defense' in a non offensive manner. If you are BEING attacked, it's too late.Bringing a knife into the equation is obviously a matter for each individual to choose - perhaps you are not even given the option - but if you had the option, I think it is worth looking at if/when it would be useful, and what to do with it to help you survive and escape.IMHO the most important areas of inquiry need to be the triggers that set off an appropriate reaction - training so the fore and lizard brain are both processing (presence of mind in the adrenal state) and then very importantly the 'off switch'. When/how to stop - exit stage left? Control and restrain? etc.Though I'm sure many of you have read it, I truly recommend Rory Miler's book "Meditations on Violence" for some great insights into different types of violence and their motivations, and the best options for surviving.

Quote: "It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed.- From “Meditations on Violence”Also: "Self defense is about recovery from stupidity or bad luck, from finding yourself in a position you would have given almost anything to prevent."

Logged

It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Miyamoto Musashi.

Yes, I believe you defined 'offensive' in this conversation as 'initiation'.My post was adding to the previous post by Jonobos discussing the concept of what 'defense' actually IS. Sometimes the parameters become blurred because successful defense is often offense ... but not 'initiation'. Hence some teachers renaming what they teach as self protection instead of self defense.Am I getting my wires crossed here .. or perhaps just too caught up in the semantics?

Logged

It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Miyamoto Musashi.

In all the scenarios mentioned, the lethal force combat was initiated by whom? Also do not confuse Initiation with an aggressive defense. Counter attacks are defensive since they are triggered by an initial attack........... When you have a lethal weapon, Kinife/Gun, in a fight- your are not in a fight, you are in combat. Combat is all about shutting down the agressor as quickly as possible to limit his oppurtunities to hurt you. If that means some broken bones and dislocations- tough, he defined the terms upon his initiation. He put lives on the line, if you are able to end the dispute without taking a life- good, but he defined the stakes.

Rarick and Crafty - Yes! Absolutely! I do not believe I was confusing 'initiation' with an aggressive defense, but perhaps the confusion (which I was just adding to apparently LOL) stems from stilljames June 16th post?Quote: "Where does proactivity end and being an aggressive bully begin? It is a hard line to draw.""Which brings me to the next question: Outside of a purely sporting situation, why teach offensive combatives at all?""Fingers, fists, knees and other empty handed blows can be every bit as lethal as the knife. We should never forget that, ethically, when we argue, fight or teach. One of the reasons for the foundation of arts such as Aikido is so that someone could defend themselves without mangling someone else for the rest of their life."

Logged

It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Miyamoto Musashi.

A couple of thoughts. We can probably learn a lesson or two from the sport element of mma/grappling and apply those concepts to the knife/anti knife dynamic. It occurs to me that when given the choice I will go for a choke over an arm bar. I have found that really tough guys, or guys with over sized egos may not tap to techniques that simply produce pain. The same can be said about mma and ground and pound tactics. Eventually the fight may be stopped by the ref, but it usually isn't the fighter who calls it quits. In a situation that is our life vs theirs shouldn't be be looking for the stategy that bails us out the fastest? A solid blood choke is not a matter of toughness on the part of your opponent. Lack of blood to the brain will stop his resistance even if he is unusually tough, or full of gusto! Can this concept be applied to the knife somehow? Is relying on pain the best plan?

Logged

When life gives you lemons make lemonadeWhen life gives you hemlock, do NOT make hemlockade!

...stop his resistance even if he is unusually tough, or full of gusto! Can this concept be applied to the knife somehow? Is relying on pain the best plan?

It can, as long as we don't expect the analogy to be too direct, i.e., we aren't likely to go immediately for a choke when a guy is flailing away with a knife but we certainly can look for ways to remove his ability to fight.

One general strategy I prefer when working counter-knife (i.e., I am defending myself using a knife against his [criminal] knife attack] is to cut his fingers or arm, while largely remaining outside of the range of his knife with my body.

This is not a unique idea, but I have been working up integrated set of tactics and techniques to aid this goal.

It is quite possible that merely bringing our knife out (into the fight), getting a small cut on the attacker, up to and including destroying his ability to hold the knife or otherwise disarming him will give him sufficient reason to remember a previous appointment.

Criminals don't usually want a 'fair fight' so unless there are overriding issues of rage or drugs, most of them will not want to continue an assault if you can demonstrate it will not be easy for him.

My choice of tools even gave significant weight (pun intended) to this strategy when I choose my left hand knife -- a Cold Steel Spartan which has a lot of heft and chopping ability, as well as the ability to stab and rip.

There are likely several other ways to approach this idea (strategically and then tactically.)

A human beings best tools are his hands, arms are the main actuators of hands. You can break both while keeping your IQ, Blood Pump and Oxygenators safely out of range. I would skip a choke since there is no way to control his primary weapons while doing so. In combat an arm bar does not stop short of a broken arm, you do it fast- his strength is not going to matter since breakage and realization of intent should hit at the same moment.

I know ground fighting but I will avoid it since mobility is a serious asset in any fight and by being on the ground gives up a serious chunk of angles and a lot of your ability to apply force. You always have to consider the "Joiner" factor. A passerby may consider you the aggressor from their point of perpective. If you finish the fight and back off, you have a chance of avoiding a fight with them. If you are on the ground and tied up with the aggressor, the well meaning good samaritan could become a second victim or accidentally kill you with his interference..........

The concept was what I was shooting for. Obviously we don't want to tangle up with the guy and choke him. I meant that some things overcome physical resistance and toughness faster than others. But this becomes a question of how to access the areas that will produce the desired result with as little danger to our juicy areas as possible. This means accessing our weapon if it isn't already out, and getting clean shots with enough power to do the job. If I can disable him enough then I can create the opening to beat feet that much easier right? It seems to me that surviving any realistic scenario takes a skill set larger than most people have. The awareness to notice the situation ahead of time, accessing your weapon, and then keeping the potential PAB assailant off you long enough to do significant damage...

Logged

When life gives you lemons make lemonadeWhen life gives you hemlock, do NOT make hemlockade!